Dragon orbiter climbs to the International Space Station

It will approach the ISS shortly after midnight Pacific Time.

The Dragon's solar panels have unfurled and are now powering the craft.

The SpaceX Dragon spacecraft will spend most of the day climbing as it makes its way to the International Space Station (ISS). The schedule will be much more active tonight. At 12:47am Pacific Time, Dragon will attempt to prove it is safe to be allowed into the 220-yard safety zone around the station. Dragon will perform a first ISS flyby this evening before it begins its demonstrations. Should those go well, the vehicle will perform another flyby while astronauts aboard the station check to see that they are communicating properly with it.

Meanwhile, around the Web, Jeff Foust has posted some Congressional reactions to the successful launch on Space Politics. As one might expect, some are positive, some are mixed. The Congressional battle continues.

SpaceX posted some excellent photos of the COTS 2/3 launch and mission over at Zenfolio. There's a nifty photo of the interior of the Dragon, as well as a photo taken of the Earth by Dragon's infrared imager. SpaceX also posted a fantastic photo taken by James Fink of the Falcon 9 launch, via its Twitter feed.

Bra'tac: Perhaps when the warships of your world attack, we may be able—Carter: Ah ah ah. Excuse me. Did you say, "ships of our world"?Bra'tac: Surely you have such vessels.Jackson: Well, we have a number of... shuttles capsules. O'Neill:shuttlescapsules.Bra'tac: These "shuttlescapsules", they are a formidable craft?O'Neill: Oh, yeah. Yeah. {to himself} Bad day.

Congressional grumpy old men not likeing change? hm... Funny how the guy that came up with lox and kerosene rocket was funded by private interests and his freedom to experiment achieved alot more than when he later worked for the military...

So much posturing. I wish that they would take the approach that every new successful American space company is good for America. SpaceX is so full of win right now that all the sour grapes in the world couldn't dampen my excitement.

Bra'tac: Perhaps when the warships of your world attack, we may be able—Carter: Ah ah ah. Excuse me. Did you say, "ships of our world"?Bra'tac: Surely you have such vessels.Jackson: Well, we have a number of... shuttles capsules. O'Neill:shuttlescapsules.Bra'tac: These "shuttlescapsules", they are a formidable craft?O'Neill: Oh, yeah. Yeah. {to himself} Bad day.

Too many Stargate references have circulated the interwebz since the Dragon capsule launched

Congressional grumpy old men not likeing change? hm... Funny how the guy that came up with lox and kerosene rocket was funded by private interests and his freedom to experiment achieved alot more than when he later worked for the military...

About a month ago, I went to see Apollo XV Astronaut Al Worden talk about his new book. It was shockingly surprising he was not a fan of Musk/SpaceX and believed it has to be a government driven effort and not private industry. He also rattled off some conspiracy theories that Musk is friends with Rahm Emmanuel and thats how SpaceX got its foot in the COTS resupply door. (He also went on to say Obamacare was drafted by Rahm's brother, I have no idea if thats true either -- the man was definitely not a fan of Obama).

But there was lots of other cool spaceflight stuff I got to hear from him, and how he worked with Chuck Yeager at Edwards during the whole supersonic flight craze.

Space-bound and down, loaded up and trucking We gonna do what they say can't be done We've got a long way to go, and a short time to get there I'm space-bound, just watch ol' Falcon run!

Keep your eyes fixed on the guages, son and never mind them shakes Let it all hang out, 'cause we got a run to make! Folks are hungry on the station and our hold is full of rations And we'll get 'em up, no matter what it takes!

Space-bound and down, loaded up and trucking We gonna do what they say can't be done We've got a long way to go, and a short time to get there I'm space-bound, just watch ol' Falcon run!

U.L.A. will try to ground us That crusty old cartel And they won't stop 'till we bid them farewell So you got to build 'em, you got to try 'em You got to keep those rockets flyin' Just set that throttle wide and give it hell!

Space-bound and down, loaded up and trucking We gonna do what they say can't be done We've got a long way to go, and a short time to get there I'm space-bound, just watch ol' Falcon run! I'm space-bound, just watch ol' Falcon run!

About a month ago, I went to see Apollo XV Astronaut Al Worden talk about his new book. It was shockingly surprising he was not a fan of Musk/SpaceX and believed it has to be a government driven effort and not private industry. He also rattled off some conspiracy theories that Musk is friends with Rahm Emmanuel and thats how SpaceX got its foot in the COTS resupply door. (He also went on to say Obamacare was drafted by Rahm's brother, I have no idea if thats true either -- the man was definitely not a fan of Obama).

But there was lots of other cool spaceflight stuff I got to hear from him, and how he worked with Chuck Yeager at Edwards during the whole supersonic flight craze.

I would trust those geezers much more about what they have to say about the past than what they have to say about the present. Or even the future. Really.

And it's not exactly as if the COTS resupply door were jammed with companies willing to do what SpaceX does for what NASA pays. The usual suspects would be happy to do some design or study for what SpaceX gets to deliver cargo up there, but certainly not much more.

SpaceX is not operating as a contractor under a cost-plus contract the way Boeing or LockMart usually do. They're not building rockets or spacecraft for NASA. They're selling launch and spacecraft services on a fixed-price basis. They have to meet NASA requirements for capability and safety for NASA missions (whether launching NASA satellites or ferrying cargo or people to the ISS), but they aren't working for NASA, and as such are not subject to the same level of oversight (read: meddling) as traditional contractors.

Fixed price contracts means SpaceX eats any cost overruns, rather than the government; this naturally encourages SpaceX to be efficient. It also means they're less likely to submit a ridiculously lowball bid just to secure the contract, meaning a more accurate estimate up front, and hopefully more stable pricing. I'm convinced that the reason so many space and military programs run over budget by 300% or more is just because the initial bids and estimates are so stupidly low in order to win the contract.

Not that SpaceX hasn't lowballed bids in the past, but until proven otherwise I'm attributing that to inexperience rather than chicanery.

SpaceX is not operating as a contractor under a cost-plus contract the way Boeing or LockMart usually do. They're not building rockets or spacecraft for NASA. They're selling launch and spacecraft services on a fixed-price basis. They have to meet NASA requirements for capability and safety for NASA missions (whether launching NASA satellites or ferrying cargo or people to the ISS), but they aren't working for NASA, and as such are not subject to the same level of oversight (read: meddling) as traditional contractors.

Fixed price contracts means SpaceX eats any cost overruns, rather than the government; this naturally encourages SpaceX to be efficient. It also means they're less likely to submit a ridiculously lowball bid just to secure the contract, meaning a more accurate estimate up front, and hopefully more stable pricing. I'm convinced that the reason so many space and military programs run over budget by 300% or more is just because the initial bids and estimates are so stupidly low in order to win the contract.

Not that SpaceX hasn't lowballed bids in the past, but until proven otherwise I'm attributing that to inexperience rather than chicanery.

This.

This is there real answer. Anyone who thinks SpaceX is "living off the government dole" on these launches really needs to go see what they USUALLY cost. SpaceX really is providing a unique service, and one that will absolutely bring prices down overall, for all the reasons abode cites.

About a month ago, I went to see Apollo XV Astronaut Al Worden talk about his new book. It was shockingly surprising he was not a fan of Musk/SpaceX and believed it has to be a government driven effort and not private industry. He also rattled off some conspiracy theories that Musk is friends with Rahm Emmanuel and thats how SpaceX got its foot in the COTS resupply door. (He also went on to say Obamacare was drafted by Rahm's brother, I have no idea if thats true either -- the man was definitely not a fan of Obama). .

Musk is becoming the Steve Jobs of the space launch industry, in all the good and bad ways. He's promised a lot over the years and hasn't always been able to deliver (this flight was supposed to happen a year ago). The only thing saving his ass at this point is that SpaceX is delivering working hardware and is starting to develop a decent track record (3 for 3 on F9, 2 for 2 on Dragon pending the outcome of this mission, although this Dragon is very different spacecraft from the C1 Dragon). But yeah, I can see why a lot of the old guard don't trust him.

I'm not a fan of the manned space program (waste of resources AFAIC), but I don't want to see it completely privatized, either. NASA has its issues, but at least they're accountable to Congress, who (in theory, anyway) are accountable to the rest of us. Corporations aren't accountable to anyone but their shareholders, and are under no obligation to share anything they learn with anyone else. And I think that fuels the distrust as well. All those old missile men knew that they were trusting their lives to the lowest bidder, so they wanted there to be a high level of accountability and transparency.

So what are they really validating on the vehicle by doing these fly-by operations? Obviously the hardware is working, is it all software validation? Tracking GPS or whatever? It seems so crazy that this is the first time many aspects of this vehicle are being tested in orbit, while all the validation it had up until now were just simulations. We'll know soon if the engineers did all their homework.

So what are they really validating on the vehicle by doing these fly-by operations?

Abort modes, free drift, etc. They don't want to get within the ISS sphere of operations without validating that the spacecraft won't suddenly ram it (like that one Progress mishap on Mir).

Quote:

Obviously the hardware is working,

So far. This is only the second Dragon to fly, and it's substantially more complex than the C1 Dragon.

Quote:

is it all software validation? Tracking GPS or whatever? It seems so crazy that this is the first time many aspects of this vehicle are being tested in orbit, while all the validation it had up until now were just simulations. We'll know soon if the engineers did all their homework.

Remember that mission was originally two separate missions; one to validate Dragon operations in orbit, and then a second mission that actually went to the ISS. Based on the performance of the C1 Dragon, SpaceX and NASA agreed to combine the two missions, with the understanding that if this Dragon failed any of the on-orbit validation tests, they'd scrub the ISS visit and launch a third demo mission. I think that's part of why this mission was so delayed.

So what are they really validating on the vehicle by doing these fly-by operations?

Abort modes, free drift, etc. They don't want to get within the ISS sphere of operations without validating that the spacecraft won't suddenly ram it (like that one Progress mishap on Mir).

Well my question is more about what aspects of the vehicle are they validating, I read the whole mission parameters list in the press kit. When they test scenarios like free drift, or abort mode, what part of the vehicle is that testing? The engines clearly work since it's been climbing in orbit all day long. Is everything that is left just validating software on the flight computer?

For example, "free drift" to me just sounds like, software commands engines to turn off and vehicle sits idle, is it more to it than that?

So what are they really validating on the vehicle by doing these fly-by operations?

Abort modes, free drift, etc. They don't want to get within the ISS sphere of operations without validating that the spacecraft won't suddenly ram it (like that one Progress mishap on Mir).

Well my question is more about what aspects of the vehicle are they validating, I read the whole mission parameters list in the press kit. When they test scenarios like free drift, or abort mode, what part of the vehicle is that testing?

Thrusters, guidance, navigation, and control (GNC), which comprises both hardware and software.

Quote:

The engines clearly work since it's been climbing in orbit all day long. Is everything that is left just validating software on the flight computer?

For example, "free drift" to me just sounds like, software commands engines to turn off and vehicle sits idle, is it more to it than that?

Basically, when it's in free drift mode, the spacecraft won't attempt to correct its orbit. Normally, if the guidance system detects it drifting from its planned orbit it will fire a thruster to correct. The spacecraft has to go into free drift mode before the ISS arm can grab it; firing a thruster then would be bad juju.

One of the problems they were having as late as last March was that the Dragon software was too paranoid and would initiate an abort when it didn't need to. But there's only so much you can test in a simulation. Hardware behaves differently in space.

SpaceX has said several times that its clean-sheet design cost just over $300 million. According to the link you referenced, "The activity estimated Falcon 9 would cost $3.977B based on NASA environment/culture. NAFCOM predicted $1.695B when all technical inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach."

$3.977B versus ~$300M. It should also be noted that the researchers on both the NASA and NAFCOM teams felt that their number was a bit on the low side.

A big part of the cost differential is that many projects don't make it through Congress unless they can show that they'll spend an appreciable amount of money in the Congressional districts associated with delegate members on the right committees. Management-to-worker ratios in projects I've been associated with have run 13:1. This is not a new issue; North American's Apollo contract was famously overstaffed, and for that matter, so is every virtually every modern military or space project. The JWST is a good example, despite its projected worth to the scientific community.

SpaceX is highly vertically-integrated. Metal goes in one end of the factory and rockets come out the other. They don't ship parts all over the United States to be assembled by another contractor in another district. They just build spacecraft.

jbode wrote:

TIMMAH! wrote:

So what are the costs of this vs. what it would have cost NASA to do the same mission?

SpaceX is not operating as a contractor under a cost-plus contract the way Boeing or LockMart usually do. They're not building rockets or spacecraft for NASA. They're selling launch and spacecraft services on a fixed-price basis. They have to meet NASA requirements for capability and safety for NASA missions (whether launching NASA satellites or ferrying cargo or people to the ISS), but they aren't working for NASA, and as such are not subject to the same level of oversight (read: meddling) as traditional contractors.

Fixed price contracts means SpaceX eats any cost overruns, rather than the government; this naturally encourages SpaceX to be efficient. It also means they're less likely to submit a ridiculously lowball bid just to secure the contract, meaning a more accurate estimate up front, and hopefully more stable pricing. I'm convinced that the reason so many space and military programs run over budget by 300% or more is just because the initial bids and estimates are so stupidly low in order to win the contract.

Not that SpaceX hasn't lowballed bids in the past, but until proven otherwise I'm attributing that to inexperience rather than chicanery.

Bra'tac: Perhaps when the warships of your world attack, we may be able—Carter: Ah ah ah. Excuse me. Did you say, "ships of our world"?Bra'tac: Surely you have such vessels.Jackson: Well, we have a number of... shuttles capsules. O'Neill:shuttlescapsules.Bra'tac: These "shuttlescapsules", they are a formidable craft?O'Neill: Oh, yeah. Yeah. {to himself} Bad day.

Too many Stargate references have circulated the interwebz since the Dragon capsule launched

SpaceX has said several times that its clean-sheet design cost just over $300 million. According to the link you referenced, "The activity estimated Falcon 9 would cost $3.977B based on NASA environment/culture. NAFCOM predicted $1.695B when all technical inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach."

$3.977B versus ~$300M. It should also be noted that the researchers on both the NASA and NAFCOM teams felt that their number was a bit on the low side.

A big part of the cost differential is that many projects don't make it through Congress unless they can show that they'll spend an appreciable amount of money in the Congressional districts associated with delegate members on the right committees. Management-to-worker ratios in projects I've been associated with have run 13:1. This is not a new issue; North American's Apollo contract was famously overstaffed, and for that matter, so is every virtually every modern military or space project. The JWST is a good example, despite its projected worth to the scientific community.

SpaceX is highly vertically-integrated. Metal goes in one end of the factory and rockets come out the other. They don't ship parts all over the United States to be assembled by another contractor in another district. They just build spacecraft.

I think you mean, "200 metre safety zone". If you must write this the American way, that's a "200 meter safety zone". It's about time to start quoting distances in the units that are being used by 95% of the world's population (the units which are now universally accepted as the standard units for space flight/ space engineering). In any case, it's obvious this distance has been CONVERTED from a metric original... Waste of time doing this!http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/metric-system-faq.txt

I'm not a fan of the manned space program (waste of resources AFAIC), but I don't want to see it completely privatized, either. NASA has its issues, but at least they're accountable to Congress, who (in theory, anyway) are accountable to the rest of us. Corporations aren't accountable to anyone but their shareholders, and are under no obligation to share anything they learn with anyone else. And I think that fuels the distrust as well. All those old missile men knew that they were trusting their lives to the lowest bidder, so they wanted there to be a high level of accountability and transparency.

SpaceX has said several times that its clean-sheet design cost just over $300 million. According to the link you referenced, "The activity estimated Falcon 9 would cost $3.977B based on NASA environment/culture. NAFCOM predicted $1.695B when all technical inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach."

$3.977B versus ~$300M. It should also be noted that the researchers on both the NASA and NAFCOM teams felt that their number was a bit on the low side.

A big part of the cost differential is that many projects don't make it through Congress unless they can show that they'll spend an appreciable amount of money in the Congressional districts associated with delegate members on the right committees. Management-to-worker ratios in projects I've been associated with have run 13:1. This is not a new issue; North American's Apollo contract was famously overstaffed, and for that matter, so is every virtually every modern military or space project. The JWST is a good example, despite its projected worth to the scientific community.

SpaceX is highly vertically-integrated. Metal goes in one end of the factory and rockets come out the other. They don't ship parts all over the United States to be assembled by another contractor in another district. They just build spacecraft.

jbode wrote:

TIMMAH! wrote:

So what are the costs of this vs. what it would have cost NASA to do the same mission?

SpaceX is not operating as a contractor under a cost-plus contract the way Boeing or LockMart usually do. They're not building rockets or spacecraft for NASA. They're selling launch and spacecraft services on a fixed-price basis. They have to meet NASA requirements for capability and safety for NASA missions (whether launching NASA satellites or ferrying cargo or people to the ISS), but they aren't working for NASA, and as such are not subject to the same level of oversight (read: meddling) as traditional contractors.

Fixed price contracts means SpaceX eats any cost overruns, rather than the government; this naturally encourages SpaceX to be efficient. It also means they're less likely to submit a ridiculously lowball bid just to secure the contract, meaning a more accurate estimate up front, and hopefully more stable pricing. I'm convinced that the reason so many space and military programs run over budget by 300% or more is just because the initial bids and estimates are so stupidly low in order to win the contract.

Not that SpaceX hasn't lowballed bids in the past, but until proven otherwise I'm attributing that to inexperience rather than chicanery.

'

I have not kept up with the costs on the Dragon/Falcon 9 system. What is the latest to that effct?

SpaceX has said several times that its clean-sheet design cost just over $300 million. According to the link you referenced, "The activity estimated Falcon 9 would cost $3.977B based on NASA environment/culture. NAFCOM predicted $1.695B when all technical inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach."

$3.977B versus ~$300M. It should also be noted that the researchers on both the NASA and NAFCOM teams felt that their number was a bit on the low side.

A big part of the cost differential is that many projects don't make it through Congress unless they can show that they'll spend an appreciable amount of money in the Congressional districts associated with delegate members on the right committees. Management-to-worker ratios in projects I've been associated with have run 13:1. This is not a new issue; North American's Apollo contract was famously overstaffed, and for that matter, so is every virtually every modern military or space project. The JWST is a good example, despite its projected worth to the scientific community.

SpaceX is highly vertically-integrated. Metal goes in one end of the factory and rockets come out the other. They don't ship parts all over the United States to be assembled by another contractor in another district. They just build spacecraft.

Shows that once the chips are down, all politicians are the same.

Yep and it shows why SpaceX has had such a hard time with the Congressional committees, because they don't send any pork to those districts. At the end of the day, dem or repub, no pork, no interest, no matter what they say otherwise. Even if it is a way better deal for the taxpayers.

Bra'tac: Perhaps when the warships of your world attack, we may be able—Carter: Ah ah ah. Excuse me. Did you say, "ships of our world"?Bra'tac: Surely you have such vessels.Jackson: Well, we have a number of... shuttles capsules. O'Neill:shuttlescapsules.Bra'tac: These "shuttlescapsules", they are a formidable craft?O'Neill: Oh, yeah. Yeah. {to himself} Bad day.

Too many Stargate references have circulated the interwebz since the Dragon capsule launched

Pfft. I've been using this one since NASA decided they were decommissioning the shuttles. Its literally the first thing that came to mind.

SpaceX has said several times that its clean-sheet design cost just over $300 million. According to the link you referenced, "The activity estimated Falcon 9 would cost $3.977B based on NASA environment/culture. NAFCOM predicted $1.695B when all technical inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach."

$3.977B versus ~$300M. It should also be noted that the researchers on both the NASA and NAFCOM teams felt that their number was a bit on the low side.

A big part of the cost differential is that many projects don't make it through Congress unless they can show that they'll spend an appreciable amount of money in the Congressional districts associated with delegate members on the right committees. Management-to-worker ratios in projects I've been associated with have run 13:1. This is not a new issue; North American's Apollo contract was famously overstaffed, and for that matter, so is every virtually every modern military or space project. The JWST is a good example, despite its projected worth to the scientific community.

SpaceX is highly vertically-integrated. Metal goes in one end of the factory and rockets come out the other. They don't ship parts all over the United States to be assembled by another contractor in another district. They just build spacecraft.

Shows that once the chips are down, all politicians are the same.

Pretty much. And is the 13:1 ratio... 13 managers to one worker, or 13 workers per manager? I don't find 13 workers/mgr to be THAT bad... especially if many of the jobs are small-team oriented.

siliconaddict wrote:

Yes and NASA doesn't have to retool the country and train everyone on conversion. imperial to metric needs to happen but make no mistake about it, its a generational shift not a 10 year plan.

If the UK and Canada can do it (and still use Imperial measurements alongside metric), so can the US. Quitcherwhinin'.

Management-to-worker ratios in projects I've been associated with have run 13:1. This is not a new issue; North American's Apollo contract was famously overstaffed, and for that matter, so is every virtually every modern military or space project. The JWST is a good example, despite its projected worth to the scientific community.

Pretty much. And is the 13:1 ratio... 13 managers to one worker, or 13 workers per manager? I don't find 13 workers/mgr to be THAT bad... especially if many of the jobs are small-team oriented.

I'm jumping in here, but my experience was similar to Studbolts in the 13:1 ratio, with the 13 being workers. While that might make sense if NASA were the designer/manufacturer, it doesn't when you consider the roles on the small team are typically either analysis or simple oversight. Then it is a huge amount of bloat, especially on the engineering side of the house.